This is last-minute-y, but there's going to be oral argument tomorrow morning at 10 AM in Sony Computer Entertainment America v. Hotz regarding the temporary restraining order. It's at Hotz's request, by the way, because tomorrow is the day he's supposed to turn over his computers to Sony, and he'd like to have a chance to speak, to present to the judge his concerns. It seems there never was a hearing on the merits of the TRO, so tomorrow is his opportunity to explain why he feels it's too broad, at a minimum.

If you are having trouble keeping track of all the motions in this litigation, frankly so am I and so are
the court clerks, and the judge is getting annoyed. She's told the parties motions to shorten time must be "properly noticed" and if they want to shorten the time they must get an order first, and "stop immediately" confusing the clerks.

Here are the filings:

02/08/2011 - 66 - MOTION for Hearing re 50 Order on Motion for TRO MOTION FOR HEARING ON TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER filed by George Hotz. Motion Hearing set for 2/10/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. (Kellar, Stewart) (Filed on 2/8/2011) (Entered: 02/08/2011)

02/09/2011 - 68 - CLERKS NOTICE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT counsel must not notice any motion prior to the what the Civil Local Rules require. All motions must be properly noticed. If counsel wish to have the hearing date heard on shorten time they must obtain an order allowing shorten notice. Counsel have continued to notice the motions improperly as if the motion for shorten time was granted already. This is improper and Counsel is instructed to stop immediately. This practice is causing matters to appear on the calendar improperly and causes confusion to the Courts staff and counsel.Any order filed granting the request will automatically adjust the properly noticed hearing date. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2011) (Entered: 02/09/2011)

#70 says the motion was set for February 11, but that's the clerk's confusion. The PDF says February 10th.

And here's what Hotz says made him file the motion:

On January 14, 2011, this court held a hearing that limited questions to the issue of personal jurisdiction over Mr. Hotz. The parties were instructed to submit additional materials bearing on the issue of personal jurisdiction. The merits of the TRO were not discussed. On January 27, 2011, without a hearing on the merits of the TRO itself, this Court granted the TRO, which was written by SCEA. Accordingly, Mr. Hotz was denied a hearing to raise issues regarding the overbreadth, vagueness and other objectionable requirements of the TRO.
Mr. Hotz filed a Motion for Leave to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the TRO but
has received no response from the Court. SCEA did not agree to allow Mr. Hotz a hearing to dispute the merits of the TRO, thus Mr. Hotz was forced to file his Motion for Hearing on Temporary Restraining Order. Kellar Decl. ∂3....

Due to the fact that Mr. Hotzís hard drives and storage devices are scheduled to be impounded on February 10, 2011, Mr. Hotzís motion is only effective if it is heard prior to the impoundment order taking effect.

If this is an accurate recounting of events, it looks like the court dropped a stitch. She granted the TRO without hearing from Hotz on the merits, although his lawyers were before her, and then didn't respond to his request for reconsideration prior to the date he was supposed to comply to the order. Hmm.